Is Masculinity/Feminity determined by society or God?

[akela135]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to post this in but I've recently noticed some gender debates that have occured on this site and had a question. My question is based on two hypothetical situations which I will descirbe below.

If a faithful Catholic man is married in the church and after the birth of his frist child he realizes how important fatherhood is to him and how precious children are he comes to realize God is calling him to something other than his current career. After talking with his wife and evaluating their finacial situation, he realizes they can afford to live off of the wife's salary alone. After much prayerful discernment the couple agree that it is alright for the husband to not only quit his job and stay home full time with his child but offer free daycare assitance through their parish to help other families who don't have the luxury of having a parent stay home. The man then devotes his time to not only being a good father but caring for as many children as possible. Does following this traditionally female role make this man less masculine? Or by following God faithfully is his maculinity brought to perfection in God?

In the reverse, say a woman in a good catholic marriage with a handful of kids is watching the news one night and after seeing the state the world is in does some prayful reflection and determines God is calling her to join the military. Her youngest child is old enough that it doesn't need constant maternal care and her husband agrees that she has unique qualities that would aid her in military life and that she could do much good work in God's name by joining. Does this traditionally male role make this woman less feminin? Or is her feminity brought to perfection by her willingness to follow and respond to God's call for her?

I guess the real question is this. As a man, if you accept that God has created you male in his image and you aspire to follow him faithfully being true to yourself in the way he created you, if your actions are aligned with God's will can they take away your masculinity? Even if God's will calls you to perform a task society views as feminin?

Likewise, as a woman, accepting the fullness of the feminity God created you with, you order your life towards him and strive to follow him with the fullness of your being, are you less feminin if God calls to perform a task viewed as masculine?

[Havard]

It's determined by God, for sure.

That said, I know some Christians of other denominations think God doesn't want men to be SAHD's (e.g. Mark Driscoll), and they try to back it up with Scripture. I'm not aware of a Catholic teaching on the matter, though, and that's what really matters.

[St Francis]

There are aspects of masculinity and feminity which are ordained by God, and others, or the outward expression of which are molded by society.

So in one society, the men will be the farmers, but in other societies, farming is women's work.

When it comes to your fatherhood question, I would say that another way our society has split up families is by having parents work outside the home and children go to school. Used to be that mostly families were together: the parents might be hunter-gatherers, farmers, or have a business of their own, and the whole family would participate in the enterprise of keeping the family fed, etc. They might each have their own tasks, so the father would hunt for food and clothing, and the mother would skin the deer and make food and clothing out of it, and the children would help wherever needed, but it was a family enterprise.

So what the father in your example is doing is not really odd from a more historical view. It may have been boys hanging out at the blacksmith's shop or circling the hunters as they made arrows, but your example is not too far off from what used to happen.

Now as to the woman's example, I think it could be that way, after all, God did call St Jeanne of Arc to military duty, but I think it would be less likely. I had relatives who were mothers in the military when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and all of a sudden they all wanted to get out!!!! From a societal standpoint, having women in the military is not a good idea, because women have babies, and women are more vulnerable. St Jeanne of Arc is a rare case; she was single, and she was protected by God. If I heard of a woman in this latter case, I would suggest really strong discernment; for the most part, it is what men bring to the military which is more valuable.

[Publisher]

Gender roles are societal and culural. Gender identity is complex...."masculine" and "feminine" traits and behavior is cultural and societial.....example...a man who wears tight satin pants and powdered wigs...elaborate brocades and make-up would be "feminine" in todays society...but in 17th-18th century France....he would be called a "gentleman".

[lynnvinc]

Yes, masculinity and feminity are pretty much culturally based, so in one culture what is considered masculine or feminine, in another culture might be considered the opposite. And there are cultures where the men (and women) are much more peaceful and passive and nonagressive than Western women. RE testosterone -- tho males have more, it is more a situational thing that only rises when there is danger or something. There are some biological differences, but culture outweighs these, and each individual has a unique life history and even biology that has an impact on how their masculine or feminine temperament plays out.

I like to look back at the Holy Family. Where was Mary? Probably at home churning butter, weaving fabric, etc -- things that are now done in factories. Where was Joseph? Probably in the next room doing carpentry work. Where was little Jesus -- probably going between the two, being with Joseph a while, and then with Mary a while, maybe trying to be helpful (depending on his age). They were both stay at home parents, and that is pretty much true up until the industrial revolution.

Now when you consider the synthetic hormonal attack on our persons in this modern day and age -- from foods, plastics, personal care products, etc -- gender becomes even more problematic.

There have always been hermaphrodites (people biologically between male and female, due to chromosomal and hormonal issues at conception and in the womb), but I'm thinking with all these synthetic hormones in our lives today, there might be more of these gender-bending issues.

And each person is unique and has had unique life experiences, which may make a father a better "mother" and a mother a better "father." The important thing is that the child should be well cared for, hopefully in a 2-parent family in which he/she gets to see and interact with both parents a lot.

Now as for the priesthood being restricted to men, that is fine with me. It could be that it is a role, and the idea is to get people as close to Jesus in various ways to perform that role. Since we are all called to service and there are many many ways people can serve without being a priest, I don't really understand the gripe some women may about not being able to be priests. Priesthood is not some honor or status or brownie button -- it is about serving God and others -- which we all should do in humility in our various ways. ((Also, perhaps if women were allowed to be priests, then the men would have sloughed off that job on the women, and there'd be even fewer (or almost no) male priests -- maybe men need to know there is a great need for them.....))

[Non sum dignus]

There are definitely parts of the differing masculine and feminine psychology that tie directly in to biology. Does God ordain every single societal role? I don't think so.

[FaithBuild18]

I'm one of those few that believe gender roles are NOT cultural or societal, and are purely 100% a result of biology, and thus of God. And I can promise you I know more biology and biochemistry than the overwhelming majority of the population, as I've been studying it my entire adult life. Nearly every "cultural" habit is rooted in genetics, and if you pay any attention to the animal kingdom you can even see vastly identical situations.

If you want to nitpick about which jobs are most manly, okay, there can be deviations. Fair enough. But most examples made up here are hypothetical anyways. Despite this, in real situations, the motivation behind what makes a job masculine/feminine are exactly the same. Men exist to create and protect. Women exist to create and nurture. In doing so, both members provide for their young, as is true in virtually all monogamous animals. This is the plan of biology, and it is the plan of God. How to best accomplish this can vary from culture to culture, era to era, fair enough. But I maintain that it has been largely static for most of history until the early 1900s. Don't nitpick slight variations, I'm already of aware of them. Yes women have always worked, everybody has always worked. But never before did women abdicate their God given roles of mothers in hopes of becoming independent of men. It is worth noting that there is no form of life on this planet where the female is independent of the male, nor vice versa. On a large scale, not much changed with gender roles until the last century, which was an entirely unnatural change, contrary to all biological programming, motivated in my opinion by greed and sin. We shall see shortly, and in fact already are seeing, the horrendous fruits of such a disordered plight against nature and God.

Virtually every single trait that makes women unique from men, exists ENTIRELY to give birth to a child, nurse that child, and live long enough to raise that child. Her anatomy and physiology is obvious. Her intellectual differences from man (numerous), her hormonal differences from man (vast), and her biochemical differences from man (countless) are exclusively oriented towards raising children. Every. single. thing. about what makes women unique, is there, by God and evolution, to serve her unique role in procreation. The same is true for men obviously.

This is true for every single animal on this planet. Despite what sociologists say (they are NOT biologists), the sweeping majority of animals share our social structure of the male being "the boss," either through monogamy or through polygyny. Some feature polyandry (bees, other insects), but this is uncommon, especially in mammals. The difference between a species featuring monogamy or polygyny (1 male, many females, the opposite of polyandry), too is determined entirely by the male, specifically his biochemistry.

I dare say the trend is the same in humans. The only reason women have any sort of position of esteem and respect in the modern day is because men decided to give it to them in the 20th century. I suppose if women ever made that realization it would be a slight moral blow to their movement. For how far you've come in society in the last 100 years, it wasn't even your own doing.

[Hadrianus]

Personally, and based upon a great deal of history, I don't think the Church has ever defined masculinity and femininity in absolute terms. The Protestant reformers did, but the Church never has done. Just think of Joan of Arc, or the fact that the Church has always recognized women monarchs. The only area in which the Church has made an absolute distinction is within regard to priestly ordination. But not in other ways. Abbesses wielded great power in certain countries before modern times, and I believe the Cistertian nuns had the privilege of singing the epistle at High Mass.

Also at least two women saints are Doctors of the Church.